Looney v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc.

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/19/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JENNIFER LOONEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
J.C. CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES,
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

11 C 5923

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This action, brought by Jennifer Looney (“Looney”) against
J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. (“Christensen”) under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Act”), was filed on
August 25 of this year.

In accordance with its regular practice,

this Court promptly issued a scheduling order that in part set an
initial status hearing for 9 a.m October 17.1
On September 22 Looney’s counsel filed electronically a
document captioned Notice of Settlement (“Notice”) that “hereby
informs the Court” of the parties’ arrival at a settlement and
“therefore requests that this honorable Court vacate all dates
currently set on calendar for the present matter.”

But counsel,

in direct violation of this District Court’s LR 5.2(f) and of the
boldface initial paragraph of this Court’s website reinforcing

1

That 49-day interval conforms to this Court’s standard
practice for newly-filed civil cases in which the federal
government is not a party, both because the time interval is
reasonable and because an exact multiple of seven assures the
case’s placement on a weekday status call.

that provision, never delivered a paper copy of that document
(Dkt. 5) to this Court’s chambers.

That rendered false the

Notice’s statement that Looney’s counsel “hereby informs the
Court”--neither this Court nor its minute clerk is hard-wired to
the electronic filing of documents, and it is certainly not our
responsibility to police such filings.

That of course is the

fundamental reason for the delivery-to-chambers requirement.
What that meant was that when October 17 arrived this case
was still on this Court’s scheduled status hearing calendar.

No

one appeared when the case was called, and an attempt had to be
made to reach the nonappearing counsel telephonically--an attempt
that proved unsuccessful.

Indeed, counsel’s request in the

Notice that sought the vacatur of all scheduled dates was
heedless of the need for every judicial officer with a few
hundred cases on his or her calendar to police the management of
that calendar by leaving none of those cases without a next
scheduled date--an essential requirement to keep cases from
falling between the cracks.
In short, the entire conduct of Looney’s counsel was not
only non-LR-compliant but also discourteous to this Court in more
than one respect.

Moreover, this Court’s minute clerk has

advised that the law office that represents Looney and is a
frequent filer of lawsuits under the Act is a repeat offender in
the respects described here.

Finally, when this Court’s minute

2

clerk emailed Looney’s counsel on October 17, after checking the
docket and learning of the Notice, to ask whether the case could
be dismissed in light of the announced settlement, her email was
simply ignored--another discourtesy.
This Court’s earlier-referred-to website has apprised
members of the bar of what they ought to know in any event--the
existence and the content of LR 5.2(f)--and has warned that a
fine may be imposed for noncompliance.

That has typically

triggered fines of $100, but the more egregious situation
described here calls for more severe treatment.

Accordingly

Looney’s counsel is ordered to pay a fine of $200 to the Clerk of
Court on or before October 28, 2011--and that fine is not to be
passed on to the client.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

October 19, 2011

3